The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Kerry Sulkowicz

Kerry Sulkowicz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted via a prior AfD. This was deleted in 2005 and I was very, very tempted to just delete this as a repost, but this does have much more content and sourcing than its 2005 counterpart did and there is just enough of an assertion of notability to where I felt that it'd be best to run this through AfD as opposed to outright speedy deletion. I really don't see where this should have been accepted through AfC either, as the sourcing is largely primary and there's only one source that is really independent of Sulkowicz herself. (It doesn't help that the article is somewhat promotional in tone.) I couldn't find anything via a search, so I have to assume that this person still fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - once we cut through the directory entries and the rest of the cruft, pretty much the only independent reference about him (and he is a man) we have left is this, where his views on 9/11 are set forth. Of course, that material isn't really quotable, and the way it is quoted in the article at hand ("He first attracted public attention after 9/11….") isn't supported by the source.
• So, in essence, this is a vanity page with very little in the way of substantive backing, and should be deleted for failing to meet WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Pinging @ Missvain: who accepted this at AfC... Sulkowicz's work appears to have attracted very little academic work, so that avenue is probably out. He has been quoted by the press as an expert on numerous (30+) occasions and this is probably sufficient to count a significant RS coverage, albeit borderline since it is primarily an interview. Undecided as to whether that adds up to notability or not. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Ugh, I swear these AfC ghosts continue to haunt me (I gave that up a while ago!). :-) I saw weak keep - he does pass the general notability guidelines if you want to talk about the significant RS coverage, and being interviewed does give weight - he's a specialist in his field - and people go to him as a subject matter expert. But, I'm not a specialist in the subject area - so perhaps bringing some folks from projects focused on mental health fields might be a good idea? Missvain ( talk) 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep – The problem is that it's written like a PR piece. It doesn't hurt to know that there are psychiatric consultants to corporations. The NYT article is OK. The Psychiatric Times is apparently a RS, although the statement "one of the most sought after psychoanalysts in the world." is silly. How can they know that? Tag it to ask someone to strip out the puffery. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 22:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment On the fence on this one, but I tried to take the promotional tone down a notch. There's some coverage of him related to the incident involving his daughter at Columbia, but that wouldn't be enough in itself to get him over the bar. The vice-chair position on the board of Physicians for Human Rights is unique, but I'm not sure whether that does it either. He does appear as an expert in a few publications. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete essentially an advertisement. Does not meet WP:PROF--his bio at NYU lists 3 articles only. The requirement is not to be a specialist in one's field, but an authority in one's field. Chair of a board can be notability, but not vice-chair. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.